Thursday Morning Quickie #11

[Note: The following text was taken verbatim from the “M Men-Gleaner Manual, Love, Marriage, and You” used in 1956-1957. Previous entries in this series can be found here.]

Lesson 20

Preparing for Children

This lesson is to be taught separately to M Men and Gleaners

JACK AND MARY “fell in love” during a period of two and a half years of dating and courtship. They wanted to marry and both wanted children. She was twenty-one and he was twenty-five. How could they get married and have a family and still allow Jack to finish his professional schooling? They talked about this problem many times for several hours and finally decided to discuss this situation with their bishop. He was very understanding and encouraged them to marry. He did point out, however, that he favored the Church teaching that one of the main purposes of marriage was the bearing and rearing of children and he encouraged them, even though there was schooling ahead” to prepare for a child. The couple took his guidance to heart, were married and went away to school. The wife obtained a job and worked for nearly a year. About that time she told her husband that he was going to become a father in another seven months. She continued her work for three months and then spent her full time and energies in preparing for the new arrival. The husband continued his school work and was extremely happy when a fine young son, weighing seven pounds and two ounces, made his appearance into their household. In fact, when he received his advanced professional degree in medicine, an informal dinner was held in his honor and on this occasion his wife was presented with a home-made diploma for “achievement in motherhood.” The boy brought joy and happiness to this couple and strengthened their family relationship.

Quickie Questions

1. Did this couple make the right decision? Why or why not?
2. Do children usually add or detract from happiness in the family?

I am trying to figure out the point of this lesson. I truly don’t get it. The questions “Did this couple make the right choice?”
“Do children add or detract from family happiness?”
don’t have anything to do with the story. Oh well. At least there is no pioneer story in lesson.

I’d like to bare my testimony that I know this story is true because our first child, a son, also weighed 7lb. 2 oz. and was born while my husband was in school.

Also, they had a baby a year and half into the marriage, then he completed an advanced medical degree and they still only had one kid? So, the kid was, like, 8? Yeah, I’d say they found a TON of joy in child-rearing and couldn’t wait to expand their family.

on this occasion his wife was presented with a home-made diploma for “achievement in motherhood.”

If someone had presented me with this, I would have been tempted to present them with the contents of my stomach. :P

I’ve heard that in general, children tend to decrease marital happiness. In my husband’s and my case, though, our children brought us closer together because they gave us something to be united against.

This story needs a post script where the husband has to work in plastics in a suburban area, rather than his preferred field of general internist in a high-needs rural area, because the wife stopped working, forcing them to increase their debt load significantly so as to feed the child.

Jack and Mary made many decisions. I would say that the decision to get married, go to school, and have children were all right decisions.

On the other hand, the decision to ask their bishop was not a right decision.

Also, the story claims the main reason for marriage is to bear and raise children. Clearly, this is a pre-Proclamation story, as we all know one of the main reasons for marriage and family is to engage in wholesome recreational activities, such as shotgun hunting and Formula One racing.

Little ditty about jack and mary
Two Mormon kids growin up in Murray
Jackies gonna be a medical star
Mary debutante frontseat of jackies car

Suckin on chilli dogs outside the Creamery
Mary sittin next to jackies side
Hes got his hands where they should be
Jackie say, hey Mary lets run off
Get Married in Manti
Bring all the family with
Get sealed f’r eternity
And jackie say a

Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of children is gone
Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of children is gone they walk on

Jackie sits back reflects his thoughts for a moment
Scratches his head and does his best Elder Packer
Well you know Mary we oughtta run of the city
Mary says, baby you aint miss no-thing
Jackie say a

Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of children is gone
Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of children is gone

Gonna let it rock
Let it roll
Let the BoM belt come down
And save my soul
Hold on to 21 as long as you can
Changes comin’ round real soon
Make us gleaners and M men

Little ditty about jack and Mary
Two Mormon kids doin the best they can

I thought the ‘Voices’ stories in the Ensign were bad, but this is a whole worse! Unfortunately, this 50s mentality has permeated until now, and much of the General Conference discourses focus on… we where so young and broke bred like rabbits and look at us, so happy.

Did this couple do the ‘right’ thing? From the story we’re led to believe that they’re fine, however, when money is tight, idealism flies through the window. I’m quite unimpressed with the ‘mothering’ award… because the job she had was just an excuse before she found her true ‘vocation’.

Children don’t cement any relationship. They’re just a product of it. If the relationship falters, the arrival of a new child will do nothing.

What strikes me this morning is how deep this history is of teaching things that are either unrelated to the gospel or, at best, tangential to it. No wonder you got a generation or two of people who, as one of my old bishop’s wives put it, “believed that we were saved by going to Mutual.” ~

I am WAY glad that we have moved away from the idea that all couples should have kids within the first 10 months of marriage. I know its still an idea that floats around, but its not so in-your-face anymore.
After five years of marriage, and no kids yet, I’ve got to say if ward members and family had explicitly told me I was going to hell for waiting, it probably would have pushed me over the edge. The implicit assumtion that I’m a child of the damned is one I can deal with, just don’t say it to my face.

It’s always the the “how” bit that’s conveniently left out. Jack and Mary wondered HOW they were going to afford to have a family with Jack a full time student. Apparently Mary working full-time for one year was enough to fund them entirely through one baby and her husband’s medical school. Question #3– WTH was Mary working as for that year? How do I get in on that?

#35…. I think most of the church leaders have moved away from this idea, but I think there are many members that are still holding on. Sometimes I wonder if they are frustrated that the church leaders in their day were telling them to have kids right away, and they did, and it was hard, and now they are resentful that the church has changed course.

My counselor in Young Women recently taught a lesson on temple marriage and she just couldn’t resist saying, “The church leaders have counseled us not to put off having children for school or jobs.” The idea is still hanging on.

Awesome Scott, unfortunately I’m a Ginger to the core. I don’t think I’ll be having any of those beautiful blond haired Aryan babies anytime soon.

And whats with people constantly voting to change my name? first 152 wasn’t good enough, now you have a problem with a period? Cut me some slack here. I think its all just a giant conspiracy for you to finally make me don the Vicky moniker. I won’t do it!

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

This M Men Gleaner is a veritable gold mine (or shall I say fool’s fold mine) of Mormon tradition! Where on earth did you find it? And can anyone explain the weird title?

I can’t comment on this particular entry without going on a tirade about how irresponsible it is for Church leaders to push young couples toward becoming parents before they can afford to support children. So I won’t.

The funny thing here is that so much focus has been on the “pushing couples to have children” aspect. While I was putting this up on the blog, I thought that there would be endless teeth gnashing over the a) fact that the lesson was to be taught separately to men and women and b) the bit about a homemade degree in “motherhood.”

Scott B., I noted the same interesting tidbits you mention. Also, the length of their courtship is definitely not the BYU stereotype, and they only had the one son by the time he had finished his advanced professional degree in medicine, which would maybe put him in his late 20s, pushing 30. This doesn’t appear to be the olden time no birth control babies a-go-go version of Mormonism that used to be held up as the ideal…

I’m fascinated that “fell in love” was put in quotation marks. It seems to imply skepticism of the notion that being in a love is a prerequisite of marriage. Were there many arranged marriages still taking place in the mid-50s church?

There is a Church manual called “Eternal Marriage” that has a chapter about birth control. It starts by quoting early Church leaders, who were basically saying “no” to birth control, and that it was our duty to bring children into the world. But towards the end of the chapter it says that a lot of things need to be considered, including, for example, wife’s emotional wellbeing, because not all women can handle many kids. And there is a quote from the General Handbook of Instructions, that says that parents must consider mother’s health AND their financial situation.

At comment 15 I was wondering when someone would rewrite Jack & Diane.

What bothered me about this bit of churchiness, besides everything else that was mentioned, was the completely unrealistic idea that she didn’t get knocked up until a year into their marriage. We know that she’s not likely on birth control because having kids was why they were concerned about getting married. Of course they wanted to MARRY. They’ve been dating 2.5 years. Could you find two hornier young people than Mormons who’ve been dating for 2.5 years without having sex? It was the kids they were concerned about and the kids that the Bishop encouraged them to let “come when they may”, to quote Kimball. I think. Or Packer. Or McKay. Does it matter? Anyway, so how many 21-year-old women aren’t going to get knocked up in the first three months? COME ON. Infertility is extremely uncommon at that age.

So, I feel like this little story is manipulative for the additional reason that it’s trying to soothe young people into thinking, “Okay, well, a year without getting pregnant is not so bad. A year together without puking, exhaustion, weight gain, heart burn, gas, insatiable hunger, insomnia, constipation, general discomfort, sore boobs… That sounds like enough of a good foundation for a happy marriage! Especially since they dated so long. I’m going to do that too, poverty, stress, and high spouse abuse stats be damned!” Except, wait– didn’t the Brethren used to say to not put off getting married, to not have too long of a dating period because it would be too hard to not sin? Something like that? So, a year without being pregnant or having a baby really isn’t all that much, when you consider that most people won’t date that long. And except that a REAL Mormon wouldn’t say “boobs” and “be damned”, either.

“fell in love” is in quotes because the Church generally looks down on the idea that people “fall in love.” It’s supposed to be much more thought out and purposeful. In other words, Mormons don’t “fall in love.” They are told that they are in love by either the spirit or, in the case of the less obedient, a bishop or other church authority.

Wait a minute—he says “let the bible belt come down and save my soul”?!?! I need to reevaluate everything I believe in. I’ve spent the last 20 years of my life thinking he wanted the Taco Bell to save his soul.

I like to think that the teaching that parents shouldn’t wait to have kids is a remnant from the days before birth control was safe and effective. Because in that era, waiting to have kids meant going without sex–and let’s be honest, a sexless marriage is even worse than dealing with a baby in grad school.

In fact, when he received his advanced professional degree in medicine, an informal dinner was held in his honor and on this occasion his wife was presented with a home-made diploma for “achievement in motherhood.”

What bothered me about this bit of churchiness, besides everything else that was mentioned, was the completely unrealistic idea that she didn’t get knocked up until a year into their marriage. We know that she’s not likely on birth control because having kids was why they were concerned about getting married. Of course they wanted to MARRY. They’ve been dating 2.5 years. Could you find two hornier young people than Mormons who’ve been dating for 2.5 years without having sex? It was the kids they were concerned about and the kids that the Bishop encouraged them to let “come when they may”, to quote Kimball. I think. Or Packer. Or McKay. Does it matter? Anyway, so how many 21-year-old women aren’t going to get knocked up in the first three months? COME ON. Infertility is extremely uncommon at that age.

For such a light-hearted posting, I think this may be the most insensitive comment ever. I know several dozen women in the early 20s who got married and, with their husbands, are still waiting for that pregnancy two years later. And I know several other couples that were not able to conceive their first child until the fourth or fifth year or marriage.

#84. Alex, it’s not insensitive. It’s statistically accurate. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. I said it’s uncommon. It’s a fake scenario, not a real one. If this was real, you think I’d be saying, “Oh, as if it took you that long! Something the matter with you, chica? Not prayin’ enough?” Of course not. *facepalm* If it’s a fake scenario, at least present the most likely outcomes so it’s not manipulative. <– Fine point right there.

If my comment is not as lighthearted as you think it should be it might give some perspective to know that I was one of those women married at 18 and pregnant 3 months in because I wanted to listen to the prophet's counsel. I wonder if my plans to continue my education would have carried forth if I felt like I had more choices available to me. As a new convert I believed everything I was told, including all those talks presented at the institute class Teachings of the Living Prophets that said to 1. Have short dating periods; 2. Not put off getting married; 3. Not put off having kids, to "let the children come when they will"; 4. To not limit the number of children. And back when those talks were given, there wasn't as much consideration given to the well-being of the mom and her ability to raise the kids. That disclaimer was harder to find then than it is now.

It made me angry then, at 18, but I resolved it by convincing myself that it was the right way and only way to go about things if one wants to follow the prophet. Now, of course, I see things differently but I was very new in the church and my testimony was delicate.

Natasha, I’d be interested in seeing the statistics that most Mormon women in their early 20s are pregnant within three months if they are not using birth control. I realise that I am working with a limited set of those I personally know, but of the dozens I referenced earlier, there have been a grand total of three pregnancies in three years. That’s not a majority to me.

I don’t think it is possible to come up with a non-manipulative scenario. These scenarios from the 50s definitely seem to be excessively so, but then, that may be just by my modern-day viewpoint. 75 years from now, we’ll be seeing Scott’s children grandchildren doing the same thing with our manuals that he is doing now with this one!

(Okay, so this blog allows HTML in comments, right? I’ve never tried.)

Here’s one article found that shows fertility in the early 20’s being such that sex around ovulation yielded 50/50 results, each month. So, how likely is it that for 11 months a woman aged 21 didn’t get pregnant with those odds?

re 78:
My sister used to do a charming rendition of Pearl Jam’s “You’re my version of a pelican” (Glorified version of a pellet gun). She never understood why Eddie Vedder was singing about pelicans, but she loved the song.

1. Utah State’s athletics program
2. Your signed copy of “The Christmas Sweater”
3. Failing to present your wife with a homemade diploma for “Achievement in Motherhood”. (Mother’s Day is just a day away, folks. It’s not too late!)

Wait a minute! Utah State has a great basketball team and, one of these days (we’ve been saying this for 40 years, but oh well) we’ll have a good football team. Back in the day I remember wives receiving certificates for a phT, which was supposed to mean put hubby through, but was more commonly known as pushed hubby through.

#77 Scott, You’re right. I don’t read your posts. Until recently, I had only read BCC when my friend Vince linked to a post or I stumbled upon one being mentioned on Twitter or in Stumble Upon. Which explains why the comments were always shut down by the time I got around to finding a post I loved. I don’t read blogs much at all, or haven’t in this past year while my brain was clearly being experimented upon by aliens or Satan or Satanic aliens because there’s no other sensible reason for the bad decisions I’ve made this year, the worst of which was failing to read BCC and your posts in particular. :-)

I don’t understand the claims of manipulation from the 1950s, I found the questions to be refreshingly open ended, they at least leave the possibility for discussion of alternatives to the church status quo. After spending most of my adult life slogging through modern church lesson manuals I’m certain that if this were rewritten for today the questions at the end would be:

1. Why did this couple make the right decision to not postpone their family?
2. How do children add to happiness in the family?

KLC, That’s a good observation and I think it’s true. However, it’s the scenario that’s manipulative. Even with open-ended questions, would they matter if the story read, “And then they lived happily ever after and then happily ever after after THAT. In short, it was perfection and if you don’t agree, you’re a nutjob or just rebellious.”?

If they had mentioned something about some struggles, it would be so much more meaningful a lesson. There actually would BE a lesson.

Natasha, even the low bar set by the current Gospel Principles manual is shattered by the brief paragraph that apparently constitutes most of this lesson. Which is why I think the lesson is mostly contained in the questions and not in the setup that leads to them. And since those questions create an opportunity for different views instead of the current lesson manual style that contains questions that really are only an excuse for reinforcing the status quo I’ve still got to claim less manipulation here than has been seen in lesson manuals for many years.

The main reason why the church has changed standards on child rearing is that before, when my own parents got married, not having health insurance wasn’t a big deal. Now a days if you have a child, and you’re not insured–you’re facing at least $20,000 in labor costs. Seeing how the church emphasizes the importance of being debt-free…doesn’t take much to connect the dots.

The MAIN reason is that some people might not have health insurance and then they’ll have debt?

I thought it might have more to do with the welfare of women and the encouragements for them to be educated and to develop their talents and to not run faster than they are able. I thought it might have more to do with schools and the church asking more of us than what was asked of our mothers. I thought it had to do with making sure that children’s needs are met and ideally by their parents and not by their older siblings. And stuff.

Debt is certainly a worry but remember, that the US is the only country with such a messed up health care system. (Okay, so that’s just my opinion.) The counsel to families applies to all the families all around the world, including those of us who are blessed to live in countries with “free” health care.

That review was not by me, but was by my colleague TT. BTW, I think mutual dislike is a wonderful thing. While I think you and I might actually agree on a number of things, I like to keep both my friends and enemies ideologically diverse.

Kulturblog

Time to update Susan’s post from August of 07. “They say that these are not the best of times, But they’re the only times I’ve ever known. And I believe there is a time for meditation In cathedrals of our own.” -Billy Joel, Summer Highland Falls

NOTE: This is an essay I wrote as an undergraduate at the University of Utah almost thirty years ago. I am republishing it here as a remembrance of my favorite professor, Mark Strand, upon the occasion of his passing. Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live… […]